Maybe it is somewhere here in this thread but there are so many posts that i would not find it in a day, so I will just ask.

Why there is so big difference in rejected ratio in CGMiner mining with intensity 13 and with intensity 20? I am mining DigitalCoin (crypt, 20s block time)When i mine with I 13 my rejection ratio is ~0.5% @ 540kh/s per card.When i mine with I 20 my rejection ratio is ~7.5% @ 700kh/s per card.

Why is there so big difference? It is caused by CGMiner, by Pool, by connection, ... ? Is there a way to lower rejection ratio with intensity 20?

At intensity 20 it takes forever for your GPU to return its results, so by the time it has returned them, fast chain changing altcoins are all onto their next block. This also explains why orphans are extremely common with fast block coins and why ultimately, they're crap since such a system provides no extra actual security (or fast confirmations since you can't trust any confirmations), just more chain fights.

And why it takes forever? Why with I 13 it does not take forever? What is different?

Maybe it is somewhere here in this thread but there are so many posts that i would not find it in a day, so I will just ask.

Why there is so big difference in rejected ratio in CGMiner mining with intensity 13 and with intensity 20? I am mining DigitalCoin (crypt, 20s block time)When i mine with I 13 my rejection ratio is ~0.5% @ 540kh/s per card.When i mine with I 20 my rejection ratio is ~7.5% @ 700kh/s per card.

Why is there so big difference? It is caused by CGMiner, by Pool, by connection, ... ? Is there a way to lower rejection ratio with intensity 20?

At intensity 20 it takes forever for your GPU to return its results, so by the time it has returned them, fast chain changing altcoins are all onto their next block. This also explains why orphans are extremely common with fast block coins and why ultimately, they're crap since such a system provides no extra actual security (or fast confirmations since you can't trust any confirmations), just more chain fights.

And why it takes forever? Why with I 13 it does not take forever? What is different?

...you're turning the intensity up meaning your handing the GPU many many times more work. GPUs take work, work on it for a while and return results at the end, they're nothing like CPUs. Going up in intensity you're giving it many many many times more work (it's an exponential function to intensity).

And why it takes forever? Why with I 13 it does not take forever? What is different?

...you're turning the intensity up meaning your handing the GPU many many times more work. GPUs take work, work on it for a while and return results at the end, they're nothing like CPUs. Going up in intensity you're giving it many many many times more work (it's an exponential function to intensity).

So basically my higher hashrate at intensity 20 is caused because GPU use all availiabe resources to solve work so it solve more work, but it does not do it faster? If so, I should try to find highest possible hashrate at intensity 13.

And why it takes forever? Why with I 13 it does not take forever? What is different?

...you're turning the intensity up meaning your handing the GPU many many times more work. GPUs take work, work on it for a while and return results at the end, they're nothing like CPUs. Going up in intensity you're giving it many many many times more work (it's an exponential function to intensity).

So basically my higher hashrate at intensity 20 is caused because GPU use all availiabe resources to solve work so it solve more work, but it does not do it faster? If so, I should try to find highest possible hashrate at intensity 13.

You probably should use trial and error find the intensity that gives you the best combination of hash rate, low error rate and best U:/WU:

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?A: Top-posting.Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

I'm trying to disable two AMU's, out of 4 total, in each CGMiner session.

"-d 0 -d 1 --remove-disabled" in the first session works fine."-d 2 -d 3 --remove-disabled" in the second session does not work.

when I run CGMiner-nogpu -n it says "failed to open, err -3"

It appears that you intend for CGMiner to be able to do this and I would like to run two sessions for two different pools.Thanks,Sam

The --usb command gives you finer control over this. The --device command only takes one set of values now (-d 0-1 instead of -d 0 -d 1) and only works for usb devices since version 3.2.1, and it is a coarse command.

I'm trying to disable two AMU's, out of 4 total, in each CGMiner session.

"-d 0 -d 1 --remove-disabled" in the first session works fine."-d 2 -d 3 --remove-disabled" in the second session does not work.

when I run CGMiner-nogpu -n it says "failed to open, err -3"

It appears that you intend for CGMiner to be able to do this and I would like to run two sessions for two different pools.Thanks,Sam

The --usb command gives you finer control over this. The --device command only takes one set of values now (-d 0-1 instead of -d 0 -d 1) and only works for usb devices since version 3.2.1, and it is a coarse command.

Ah, in other words RTFM . I found the section in the readme and I'll give it a whirl tonight.Thanks,Sam

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?A: Top-posting.Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

The --usb command gives you finer control over this. The --device command only takes one set of values now (-d 0-1 instead of -d 0 -d 1) and only works for usb devices since version 3.2.1, and it is a coarse command.

I went ahead and tried it now.

"--usb 5:1,5:2" in one instance"--usb 3:1,3:2" in the other instance

Both hashing away just fine. Now I can more objectively compare pools.Thanks,Sam

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?A: Top-posting.Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

The --usb command gives you finer control over this. The --device command only takes one set of values now (-d 0-1 instead of -d 0 -d 1) and only works for usb devices since version 3.2.1, and it is a coarse command.

I went ahead and tried it now.

"--usb 5:1,5:2" in one instance"--usb 3:1,3:2" in the other instance

Both hashing away just fine. Now I can more objectively compare pools.Thanks,Sam

Is that all that is necessary to run multiple instances or is there other "secret sauce"? What do the number mean?

The --usb command gives you finer control over this. The --device command only takes one set of values now (-d 0-1 instead of -d 0 -d 1) and only works for usb devices since version 3.2.1, and it is a coarse command.

I went ahead and tried it now.

"--usb 5:1,5:2" in one instance"--usb 3:1,3:2" in the other instance

Both hashing away just fine. Now I can more objectively compare pools.Thanks,Sam

Is that all that is necessary to run multiple instances or is there other "secret sauce"? What do the number mean?

i believe the number is bus:device.

so "5:1" means device 1 on bus 5. on linux lsusb shows you the bus and device number for each usb device.

When I downgraded to cgminer 3.1.0, it runs like a champ. I've used cgminer 3.2.1 to mine altcoins on stratum pools...but I just noticed that the URLs for those pools don't have trailing slashes, while the ones for the Bitcoin pools do:

I am using cgminer with multiple pools for different coins. Then using the API to control which pool is currently active (all sha256). But, I want to query a particular coins current difficulty. Is it possible?

But he's only got one active pool at a time via the API, (at least I asusme it's just one pool), so does this warning still stand?

Right, i use "--failover-only", and then "switchpool" command to set which pool i want to mine at. The logs and display show that its only mining the pool i want it to. and if this pool is down, it failsover to something else. Works like i want it to, I dont "feel" there is any issue in terms of payouts or smthn...